DOCSLIB.ORG

Differential and Integral Calculus in Ultrapower

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Differential and Integral Calculus in Ultrapower Differential and Integral Calculus in Ultrapower Fields, without the Transfer Principle of Nonstandard Analysis, or any Topological Type Structures Elemer Elad Rosinger To cite this version: Elemer Elad Rosinger. Differential and Integral Calculus in Ultrapower Fields, without the Transfer Principle of Nonstandard Analysis, or any Topological Type Structures. 2014. hal-01072016 HAL Id: hal-01072016 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01072016 Submitted on 7 Oct 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Differential and Integral Calculus in Ultrapower Fields, without the Transfer Principle of Nonstandard Analysis, or any Topological Type Structures Elem´erE Rosinger Department of Mathematics University of Pretoria Pretoria, 0002 South Africa e-mail : [email protected] Dedicated to Marie-Louise Nykamp "Your Algebra and Geometry is your Destiny ..." Anonymous "A field of force represents the discrepancy between the natural geometry of a coordinate system and the abstract geometry arbitrarily ascribed to it." Arthur Eddington "Science is not done scientifically ..." Anonymous 1 Abstract It has for long been been overlooked that, quite easily, infinitely many ultrapower field extensions FU can be constructed for the usual field R of real numbers, by using only elementary algebra. This allows a simple and direct access to the benefit of both infinitely small and infinitely large scalars, without the considerable usual technical diffi- culties involved in setting up and then using the Transfer Principle in Nonstandard Analysis. A natural Differential and Integral Calculus - which extends the usual one on the field R - is set up in these fields FU without any use of the Transfer Principle in Nonstandard Analy- sis, or of any topological type structure. Instead, in the case of the Riemann type integrals introduced, three simple and natural axioms in Set Theory are assumed. The case when these three axioms may be inconsistent with the Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory is discussed in section 5. 1. The Historically Unique Status of the Usual Field R of Real Numbers The historically special, and in fact, unique, and thus natural, or canonical status of the usual field R of real numbers comes from the following Theorem 1.1. [1, p. 30] There is, up to order isomorphism, exactly one complete ordered field, namely, the usual field R of real numbers. This basic result, well known in mathematics, also settles the closely interrelated issues of infinitesimals and the Archimedean property, namely Theorem 1.2. [1, p. 30] Every complete ordered field F is Archimedean. 2 An ordered field F is Archimedean, if and only if it is order isomorphic with a subfield of R. Now since obviously R, and hence its subfields, do not have nontrivial infinitesimals, while on the other hand, all ultrapower fields FU , see section 2 below, do have them, we obtain Corollary 1.1. Every ultrapower field FU is non-Archimedean. In fact, the stronger results holds Corollary 1.2. Every ordered field F with nontrivial infinitesimals is non-Archimedean. In this way, having nontrivial infinitesimals, and being non-Archimedean are equivalent in the case of ordered fields. The definition of the concepts ordered field, complete field, Archimedean field, order isomorphism, infinitesimals, and eventually other ones needed, can be found in [17, pp. 26-30]. 2. Ultrapower Fields Detailes related to the sequel can be found [4-24], as well as in any 101 Algebra college course which deals with groups, rings, fields, and quotient constructions in groups and rings. Let Λ be any given infinite set which will be used as index set, namely, with indices λ 2 Λ. A usual particular case is when Λ = N and λ = n 2 N = Λ. 3 Now we denote by (2.1) RΛ the set of all real valued functions defined on Λ, that is, functions x :Λ −! R. Sometime it will be convenient to write such a function as the family of real numbers (xλ)λ2Λ indexed by λ 2 Λ. Also, in certain cases we shall have Λ = N, thus such a family becomes the usual infinite sequence (xn)n2N. Clearly, with the usual operations of addition and multiplication of such functions, as well as the multiplication of such functions with scalars from R, it follows that RΛ is a commutative unital algebra on R. Now it is easy to see that RΛ is not a field, since it has zero divisors. That is, exist elements x; y 2 RΛ; x 6= 0; y 6= 0, such that never- theless xy = 0. For instance, if we take ν; µ 2 Λ; ν 6= µ, and take Λ x = (xλ)λ2Λ; y = (yλ)λ2Λ 2 R , such that xν = 1, while xλ = 0, for λ 2 Λ; λ 6= ν, and similarly, yµ = 1, while yλ = 0, for λ 2 Λ; λ 6= µ, then obviously x 6= 0; y 6= 0, and yet xy = 0. Here we can recall from Algebra that given any ideal I in RΛ, we have (2.2) RΛ=I is a field () I is a maximal ideal By the way, above, and in the sequel, by an ideal I in RΛ, we under- stand a proper ideal I, namely, such that f0g $ I $ RΛ. The issue of identifying maximal ideals I in RΛ needed in (2.2), can be reduced to ultrafilters on Λ. Namely, there is a simple bijection between ideals I in RΛ and filters F on Λ, as follows I 7−! FI = f I ⊆ Λ j 9 x 2 I : Z(x) ⊆ I g (2.3) Λ F 7−! IF = f x 2 R j Z(x) 2 F g in other words, we have 4 (2.4) I 7−! FI 7−! IFI = I; F 7−! IF 7−! FIF = F where for x 2 RΛ, we denoted Z(x) = fλ 2 Λ j x(λ) = 0g, that is, the zero set of the function x. Now it is easy to see that Λ U ultrafilter on Λ =)IU maximal ideal in R (2.5) Λ I maximal ideal in R =)FI ultrafilter on Λ Λ Obviously, identifying maximal ideals IU in R is more difficult than identifying ultrafilters U on Λ. In view of that, we start with an ultrafilter U on Λ and associate with it the maximal ideal IU . Now according to (2.2) we obtain the ultra- power field Λ (2.6) FU = R =IU Here however, we have to be careful about the fact that there are two kind of ultrafilters with respect to the quotient fields (2.6). We shall only be interested in free or non-principal ultrafilters U, namely, those which satisfy the condition T (2.7) I2U I = φ The reason is that the alternative kind of ultrafilters U, called prin- cipal ultrafilters or ultrafilters fixed at some given λ0 2 Λ, namely, for which T (2.8) I2U I = fλ0g 6= φ are not of interest here, since it is easy to see that their corresponding quotient fileds (2.6) are isomorphic with R. Consequently, we shall from now on start with a free ultrafilter U on Λ. Then, two essential properties of the ultrapower field FU corre- 5 sponding to U according to (2.6), are as follows. First, we have the embedding, that is, injective homomorphism of fields ∗ (2.9) R 3 r 7−! r = u(r) + IU 2 FU where u(r) 2 RΛ is defined by u(r):Λ 3 λ 7−! r 2 R, thus u(r) is the constant function with value r. When there is no confusion, we shall write ∗r = r, for r 2 R, thus (2.9) will be considered as an inclusion of fields, hence, with R being a strict subfield of FU , namely (2.10) R $ FU The second property is that the ultrapower field FU has the follow- ing linear order that extends the usual linear order on R. Given ξ = (xλ)λ2Λ + IU ; η = (yλ)λ2Λ + IU 2 FU , then (2.11) ξ ≤U η is defined by the condition (2.12) f λ 2 Λ j xλ ≤ yλ g 2 U It follows that ∗ ∗ (2.13) r ≤ s () r ≤U s; r; s 2 R also, for ξ; η; χ 2 FU , we have ξ ≤U η =) ξ + χ ≤U η + χ (2.14) ξ ≤U η; χ ≥U 0 =) χ ξ ≤U χ η And now, to the far more rich structure of the ultrapower fields FU , when compared with the usual field R of real numbers, see [4-24]. This rich structure is due to the presence of infinitesimals, or infinitely small elements, and then, opposite to them, the presence of infinitely larger elements. And all that rich structure is contributing to the non- Archimedean structure of FU . 6 Let us first extend the absolute value to the ultrapower fields FU as follows. Given ξ = (xλ)λ2Λ + IU 2 FU , then we define (2.15) jξj = (jxλj)λ2Λ + IU 2 FU Now, each ultrapower field FU has the following three kind of subsets. The subset of infinitely small, or equivalently, infinitesimal elements is denoted by Monad U (0). The subset of finite elements is denoted by Galaxy U (0). And at last, the subset of infinitely large elements is FU n Galaxy U (0).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to Nonstandard Analysis 11
    AN INTRODUCTION TO NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS ISAAC DAVIS Abstract. In this paper we give an introduction to nonstandard analysis, starting with an ultrapower construction of the hyperreals. We then demon- strate how theorems in standard analysis \transfer over" to nonstandard anal- ysis, and how theorems in standard analysis can be proven using theorems in nonstandard analysis. 1. Introduction For many centuries, early mathematicians and physicists would solve problems by considering infinitesimally small pieces of a shape, or movement along a path by an infinitesimal amount. Archimedes derived the formula for the area of a circle by thinking of a circle as a polygon with infinitely many infinitesimal sides [1]. In particular, the construction of calculus was first motivated by this intuitive notion of infinitesimal change. G.W. Leibniz's derivation of calculus made extensive use of “infinitesimal” numbers, which were both nonzero but small enough to add to any real number without changing it noticeably. Although intuitively clear, infinitesi- mals were ultimately rejected as mathematically unsound, and were replaced with the common -δ method of computing limits and derivatives. However, in 1960 Abraham Robinson developed nonstandard analysis, in which the reals are rigor- ously extended to include infinitesimal numbers and infinite numbers; this new extended field is called the field of hyperreal numbers. The goal was to create a system of analysis that was more intuitively appealing than standard analysis but without losing any of the rigor of standard analysis. In this paper, we will explore the construction and various uses of nonstandard analysis. In section 2 we will introduce the notion of an ultrafilter, which will allow us to do a typical ultrapower construction of the hyperreal numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • 0.999… = 1 an Infinitesimal Explanation Bryan Dawson
    0 1 2 0.9999999999999999 0.999… = 1 An Infinitesimal Explanation Bryan Dawson know the proofs, but I still don’t What exactly does that mean? Just as real num- believe it.” Those words were uttered bers have decimal expansions, with one digit for each to me by a very good undergraduate integer power of 10, so do hyperreal numbers. But the mathematics major regarding hyperreals contain “infinite integers,” so there are digits This fact is possibly the most-argued- representing not just (the 237th digit past “Iabout result of arithmetic, one that can evoke great the decimal point) and (the 12,598th digit), passion. But why? but also (the Yth digit past the decimal point), According to Robert Ely [2] (see also Tall and where is a negative infinite hyperreal integer. Vinner [4]), the answer for some students lies in their We have four 0s followed by a 1 in intuition about the infinitely small: While they may the fifth decimal place, and also where understand that the difference between and 1 is represents zeros, followed by a 1 in the Yth less than any positive real number, they still perceive a decimal place. (Since we’ll see later that not all infinite nonzero but infinitely small difference—an infinitesimal hyperreal integers are equal, a more precise, but also difference—between the two. And it’s not just uglier, notation would be students; most professional mathematicians have not or formally studied infinitesimals and their larger setting, the hyperreal numbers, and as a result sometimes Confused? Perhaps a little background information wonder .
    [Show full text]
  • Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics
    Found Sci DOI 10.1007/s10699-012-9316-5 Tools, Objects, and Chimeras: Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics Vladimir Kanovei · Mikhail G. Katz · Thomas Mormann © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract We examine some of Connes’ criticisms of Robinson’s infinitesimals starting in 1995. Connes sought to exploit the Solovay model S as ammunition against non-standard analysis, but the model tends to boomerang, undercutting Connes’ own earlier work in func- tional analysis. Connes described the hyperreals as both a “virtual theory” and a “chimera”, yet acknowledged that his argument relies on the transfer principle. We analyze Connes’ “dart-throwing” thought experiment, but reach an opposite conclusion. In S, all definable sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable, suggesting that Connes views a theory as being “vir- tual” if it is not definable in a suitable model of ZFC. If so, Connes’ claim that a theory of the hyperreals is “virtual” is refuted by the existence of a definable model of the hyperreal field due to Kanovei and Shelah. Free ultrafilters aren’t definable, yet Connes exploited such ultrafilters both in his own earlier work on the classification of factors in the 1970s and 80s, and in Noncommutative Geometry, raising the question whether the latter may not be vulnera- ble to Connes’ criticism of virtuality. We analyze the philosophical underpinnings of Connes’ argument based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and detect an apparent circularity in Connes’ logic. We document the reliance on non-constructive foundational material, and specifically on the Dixmier trace − (featured on the front cover of Connes’ magnum opus) V.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 25: Ultraproducts
    LECTURE 25: ULTRAPRODUCTS CALEB STANFORD First, recall that given a collection of sets and an ultrafilter on the index set, we formed an ultraproduct of those sets. It is important to think of the ultraproduct as a set-theoretic construction rather than a model- theoretic construction, in the sense that it is a product of sets rather than a product of structures. I.e., if Xi Q are sets for i = 1; 2; 3;:::, then Xi=U is another set. The set we use does not depend on what constant, function, and relation symbols may exist and have interpretations in Xi. (There are of course profound model-theoretic consequences of this, but the underlying construction is a way of turning a collection of sets into a new set, and doesn't make use of any notions from model theory!) We are interested in the particular case where the index set is N and where there is a set X such that Q Xi = X for all i. Then Xi=U is written XN=U, and is called the ultrapower of X by U. From now on, we will consider the ultrafilter to be a fixed nonprincipal ultrafilter, and will just consider the ultrapower of X to be the ultrapower by this fixed ultrafilter. It doesn't matter which one we pick, in the sense that none of our results will require anything from U beyond its nonprincipality. The ultrapower has two important properties. The first of these is the Transfer Principle. The second is @0-saturation. 1. The Transfer Principle Let L be a language, X a set, and XL an L-structure on X.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Euler's Foundations of Differential Calculus in Isabelle
    Exploring Euler’s Foundations of Differential Calculus in Isabelle/HOL using Nonstandard Analysis Jessika Rockel I V N E R U S E I T H Y T O H F G E R D I N B U Master of Science Computer Science School of Informatics University of Edinburgh 2019 Abstract When Euler wrote his ‘Foundations of Differential Calculus’ [5], he did so without a concept of limits or a fixed notion of what constitutes a proof. Yet many of his results still hold up today, and he is often revered for his skillful handling of these matters despite the lack of a rigorous formal framework. Nowadays we not only have a stricter notion of proofs but we also have computer tools that can assist in formal proof development: Interactive theorem provers help users construct formal proofs interactively by verifying individual proof steps and pro- viding automation tools to help find the right rules to prove a given step. In this project we examine the section of Euler’s ‘Foundations of Differential Cal- culus’ dealing with the differentiation of logarithms [5, pp. 100-104]. We retrace his arguments in the interactive theorem prover Isabelle to verify his lines of argument and his conclusions and try to gain some insight into how he came up with them. We are mostly able to follow his general line of reasoning, and we identify a num- ber of hidden assumptions and skipped steps in his proofs. In one case where we cannot reproduce his proof directly we can still validate his conclusions, providing a proof that only uses methods that were available to Euler at the time.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Basic Concepts in This Section We Take X to Be Any Infinite Set Of
    401 4. Basic Concepts In this section we take X to be any infinite set of individuals that contains R as a subset and we assume that ∗ : U(X) → U(∗X) is a proper nonstandard extension. The purpose of this section is to introduce three important concepts that are characteristic of arguments using nonstandard analysis: overspill and underspill (consequences of certain sets in U(∗X) not being internal); hy- perfinite sets and hyperfinite sums (combinatorics of hyperfinite objects in U(∗X)); and saturation. Overspill and underspill ∗ ∗ 4.1. Lemma. The sets N, µ(0), and fin( R) are external in U( X). Proof. Every bounded nonempty subset of N has a maximum element. By transfer we conclude that every bounded nonempty internal subset of ∗N ∗ has a maximum element. Since N is a subset of N that is bounded above ∗ (by any infinite element of N) but that has no maximum element, it follows that N is external. Every bounded nonempty subset of R has a least upper bound. By transfer ∗ we conclude that every bounded nonempty internal subset of R has a least ∗ upper bound. Since µ(0) is a bounded nonempty subset of R that has no least upper bound, it follows that µ(0) is external. ∗ ∗ ∗ If fin( R) were internal, so would N = fin( R) ∩ N be internal. Since N is ∗ external, it follows that fin( R) is also external. 4.2. Proposition. (Overspill and Underspill Principles) Let A be an in- ternal set in U(∗X). ∗ (1) (For N) A contains arbitrarily large elements of N if and only if A ∗ contains arbitrarily small infinite elements of N.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyperreal Calculus MAT2000 ––Project in Mathematics
    Hyperreal Calculus MAT2000 ––Project in Mathematics Arne Tobias Malkenes Ødegaard Supervisor: Nikolai Bjørnestøl Hansen Abstract This project deals with doing calculus not by using epsilons and deltas, but by using a number system called the hyperreal numbers. The hyperreal numbers is an extension of the normal real numbers with both infinitely small and infinitely large numbers added. We will first show how this system can be created, and then show some basic properties of the hyperreal numbers. Then we will show how one can treat the topics of convergence, continuity, limits and differentiation in this system and we will show that the two approaches give rise to the same definitions and results. Contents 1 Construction of the hyperreal numbers 3 1.1 Intuitive construction . .3 1.2 Ultrafilters . .3 1.3 Formal construction . .4 1.4 Infinitely small and large numbers . .5 1.5 Enlarging sets . .5 1.6 Extending functions . .6 2 The transfer principle 6 2.1 Stating the transfer principle . .6 2.2 Using the transfer principle . .7 3 Properties of the hyperreals 8 3.1 Terminology and notation . .8 3.2 Arithmetic of hyperreals . .9 3.3 Halos . .9 3.4 Shadows . 10 4 Convergence 11 4.1 Convergence in hyperreal calculus . 11 4.2 Monotone convergence . 12 5 Continuity 13 5.1 Continuity in hyperreal calculus . 13 5.2 Examples . 14 5.3 Theorems about continuity . 15 5.4 Uniform continuity . 16 6 Limits and derivatives 17 6.1 Limits in hyperreal calculus . 17 6.2 Differentiation in hyperreal calculus . 18 6.3 Examples . 18 6.4 Increments .
    [Show full text]
  • What Makes a Theory of Infinitesimals Useful? a View by Klein and Fraenkel
    WHAT MAKES A THEORY OF INFINITESIMALS USEFUL? A VIEW BY KLEIN AND FRAENKEL VLADIMIR KANOVEI, KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, AND THOMAS MORMANN Abstract. Felix Klein and Abraham Fraenkel each formulated a criterion for a theory of infinitesimals to be successful, in terms of the feasibility of implementation of the Mean Value Theorem. We explore the evolution of the idea over the past century, and the role of Abraham Robinson’s framework therein. 1. Introduction Historians often take for granted a historical continuity between the calculus and analysis as practiced by the 17–19th century authors, on the one hand, and the arithmetic foundation for classical analysis as developed starting with the work of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass around 1870, on the other. We extend this continuity view by exploiting the Mean Value Theo- rem (MVT) as a case study to argue that Abraham Robinson’s frame- work for analysis with infinitesimals constituted a continuous extension of the procedures of the historical infinitesimal calculus. Moreover, Robinson’s framework provided specific answers to traditional preoc- cupations, as expressed by Klein and Fraenkel, as to the applicability of rigorous infinitesimals in calculus and analysis. This paper is meant as a modest contribution to the prehistory of Robinson’s framework for infinitesimal analysis. To comment briefly arXiv:1802.01972v1 [math.HO] 1 Feb 2018 on a broader picture, in a separate article by Bair et al. [1] we ad- dress the concerns of those scholars who feel that insofar as Robinson’s framework relies on the resources of a logical framework that bears little resemblance to the frameworks that gave rise to the early theo- ries of infinitesimals, Robinson’s framework has little bearing on the latter.
    [Show full text]
  • When Is .999... Less Than 1?
    The Mathematics Enthusiast Volume 7 Number 1 Article 11 1-2010 When is .999... less than 1? Karin Usadi Katz Mikhail G. Katz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/tme Part of the Mathematics Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Katz, Karin Usadi and Katz, Mikhail G. (2010) "When is .999... less than 1?," The Mathematics Enthusiast: Vol. 7 : No. 1 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/tme/vol7/iss1/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Mathematics Enthusiast by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TMME, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 3 When is .999... less than 1? Karin Usadi Katz and Mikhail G. Katz0 We examine alternative interpretations of the symbol described as nought, point, nine recurring. Is \an infinite number of 9s" merely a figure of speech? How are such al- ternative interpretations related to infinite cardinalities? How are they expressed in Lightstone's \semicolon" notation? Is it possible to choose a canonical alternative inter- pretation? Should unital evaluation of the symbol :999 : : : be inculcated in a pre-limit teaching environment? The problem of the unital evaluation is hereby examined from the pre-R, pre-lim viewpoint of the student. 1. Introduction Leading education researcher and mathematician D. Tall [63] comments that a mathe- matician \may think
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:0811.0164V8 [Math.HO] 24 Feb 2009 N H S Gat2006393)
    A STRICT NON-STANDARD INEQUALITY .999 ...< 1 KARIN USADI KATZ AND MIKHAIL G. KATZ∗ Abstract. Is .999 ... equal to 1? A. Lightstone’s decimal expan- sions yield an infinity of numbers in [0, 1] whose expansion starts with an unbounded number of repeated digits “9”. We present some non-standard thoughts on the ambiguity of the ellipsis, mod- eling the cognitive concept of generic limit of B. Cornu and D. Tall. A choice of a non-standard hyperinteger H specifies an H-infinite extended decimal string of 9s, corresponding to an infinitesimally diminished hyperreal value (11.5). In our model, the student re- sistance to the unital evaluation of .999 ... is directed against an unspoken and unacknowledged application of the standard part function, namely the stripping away of a ghost of an infinitesimal, to echo George Berkeley. So long as the number system has not been specified, the students’ hunch that .999 ... can fall infinites- imally short of 1, can be justified in a mathematically rigorous fashion. Contents 1. The problem of unital evaluation 2 2. A geometric sum 3 3.Arguingby“Itoldyouso” 4 4. Coming clean 4 5. Squaring .999 ...< 1 with reality 5 6. Hyperreals under magnifying glass 7 7. Zooming in on slope of tangent line 8 arXiv:0811.0164v8 [math.HO] 24 Feb 2009 8. Hypercalculator returns .999 ... 8 9. Generic limit and precise meaning of infinity 10 10. Limits, generic limits, and Flatland 11 11. Anon-standardglossary 12 Date: October 22, 2018. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 26E35; Secondary 97A20, 97C30 . Key words and phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Oscillations of the Pendulum, Euler's Method, and Adequality
    SMALL OSCILLATIONS OF THE PENDULUM, EULER’S METHOD, AND ADEQUALITY VLADIMIR KANOVEI, KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, AND TAHL NOWIK Abstract. Small oscillations evolved a great deal from Klein to Robinson. We propose a concept of solution of differential equa- tion based on Euler’s method with infinitesimal mesh, with well- posedness based on a relation of adequality following Fermat and Leibniz. The result is that the period of infinitesimal oscillations is independent of their amplitude. Keywords: harmonic motion; infinitesimal; pendulum; small os- cillations Contents 1. Small oscillations of a pendulum 1 2. Vector fields, walks, and integral curves 3 3. Adequality 4 4. Infinitesimal oscillations 5 5. Adjusting linear prevector field 6 6. Conclusion 7 Acknowledgments 7 References 7 arXiv:1604.06663v1 [math.HO] 13 Apr 2016 1. Small oscillations of a pendulum The breakdown of infinite divisibility at quantum scales makes irrel- evant the mathematical definitions of derivatives and integrals in terms ∆y of limits as x tends to zero. Rather, quotients like ∆x need to be taken in a certain range, or level. The work [Nowik & Katz 2015] developed a general framework for differential geometry at level λ, where λ is an infinitesimal but the formalism is a better match for a situation where infinite divisibility fails and a scale for calculations needs to be fixed ac- cordingly. In this paper we implement such an approach to give a first rigorous account “at level λ” for small oscillations of the pendulum. 1 2 VLADIMIR KANOVEI, K. KATZ, MIKHAIL KATZ, AND TAHL NOWIK In his 1908 book Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Stand- point, Felix Klein advocated the introduction of calculus into the high- school curriculum.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Numbers Are Real? Are Numbers Which / MAA AMS
    AMS / MAA CLASSROOM RESOURCE MATERIALS VOL AMS / MAA CLASSROOM RESOURCE MATERIALS VOL 42 42 Which Numbers Are Real? Which Numbers are Real? MICHAEL HENLE Everyone knows the real numbers, those fundamental quantities that make possible all of mathematics from high school algebra and Euclidean geometry THE SURREAL NUMBERS through the Calculus and beyond; and also serve as the basis for measurement in science, industry, and ordinary life. This book surveys alternative real number systems: systems that generalize and extend the real numbers yet stay close to these properties that make the reals central to mathematics. Alternative real numbers include many different kinds of numbers, for example multidimen- THE HYPERREAL NUMBERS sional numbers (the complex numbers, the quaternions and others), infinitely small and infinitely large numbers (the hyperreal numbers and the surreal numbers), and numbers that represent positions in games (the surreal numbers). Each system has a well-developed theory, including applications to other areas of mathematics and science, such as physics, the theory of games, multi-dimen- sional geometry, and formal logic. They are all active areas of current mathemat- THE CONSTRUCTIVE REALS ical research and each has unique features, in particular, characteristic methods of proof and implications for the philosophy of mathematics, both highlighted in this book. Alternative real number systems illuminate the central, unifying Michael Henle role of the real numbers and include some exciting and eccentric parts of math- ematics. Which Numbers Are Real? Will be of interest to anyone with an interest in THE COMPLEX NUMBERS numbers, but specifically to upper-level undergraduates, graduate students, and professional mathematicians, particularly college mathematics teachers.
    [Show full text]